    Both the House and Senate have passed bills out of committee that positively address the major flaws of current law.

Both bills are to be commended for pushing the pendulum of control of education back firmly to state and local education agencies Where there are departures, know that the House goes even further to return control to the state/local level.

Both bills represent a strong step in the right direction.

     Eliminate AYP, AMO, SES, and 100% proficiency Both return control of assessments and accountability to the states Both maintain math and ELA testing requirements Both continue data disaggregation Reauthorize REAP     Promote growth models and multiple measures Include computer adaptive assessment Adjust 1 and 2 percent caps Require 4 year adjusted cohort graduation rate and allow states to calculate 5 and 6 year rates

   School Improvement: House gives authority to state; Senate bill of schools HQT: House bill eliminates HQT; Senate bill retains it Maintenance of Effort: House bill eliminates MoE; Senate bill retains it       changes to calculation Teacher Evaluation: House bill requires eval systems for all 50 states; Senate bill requires it only in states that pursue put of funding Funding Flexibility: House bill provides funding flexibility between special population programs; Senate bill does not extend flexibility Class Size Reduction: House bill caps it at 10%; Senate bill makes no change Ed Tech: House bill eliminates Ed Tech; Senate bill reauthorizes Ed Tech program RttT and i3: Senate bill codifies RttT and i3 as law

 › › › ›

House Committee

Maintenance of Effort Funding Cap Charter Schools Equitable Participation  › › › ›

Senate Committee

Comparability Charter Schools Foster Children RttT and i3

 o o   To date, more than half (26) of the states have received ESEA waivers from the administration First Round Waivers were granted to all 11 applicants: CO, FL, GA, IN, KY, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OK and TN Second Round Waivers were granted to 15 of 26 applicants: AR, CT, DE, LA, MD, MO, NY, NC, OH, RI, SD, UT, VA, WA and WI Seven additional states (AL, AK, ID, IA, KS, ME, and WV) are able to freeze their AMOs while they work on their waiver applications.

A third and final round of applications will be submitted after Labor Day.

       Senate bill (S.2020) introduced Dec 2011 by Harkin Prohibited for special-ed and gen-ed students Prohibited from being including in IEP Mandates huge data reporting and collection Only can be used if child is at risk of causing “serious bodily injury” Conflicts with 31 state law re “reasonable and necessary force” provisions FAPE denied if used inappropriately

      97% of school districts do not use mechanical restraints under any circumstances 94% of school districts monitor students when they are in seclusion at all times 97% of school districts have a policy to end the use of seclusion and restraint as soon as the emergency ends Of the students that are restrained or secluded, 66% of districts reported they exclusively use these techniques on students with severe emotional or behavioral disabilities 80% of all school personnel trained to use seclusion and restraint are also trained in nonviolent crisis intervention techniques 78% of school personnel are trained in seclusion and restraint or nonviolent crisis interventions at least annually

  16% respondents said they use S/R to punish students 19% of respondents support using S/R techniques to punish students

These techniques must be used exclusively in

emergency situations. AND, of course, WE NEED MONEY! 91% of respondents said their school district would benefit from Safe and Drug Free Funding to implement school-wide positive behavioral support and intervention systems and nonviolent crisis interventions.

    Rural Education Achievement Program reauthorized in both House and Senate bills Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (Forest Counties) received a one-year extension on the Transportation bill.

There is a Rural Education Caucus in both the House and Senate. If you are from a rural community, make sure your Reps and Senators are on the caucus!

Support the creation of the Office of Rural Education Policy within the U.S. Dept. of Ed.

   ESEA › Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT, Title II Part D) is in current law but has been zero funded.

› The Senate ESEA bill includes an education technology program; the House bill does not.

E-Rate: › Help us raise awareness. Significant staff turnover on the hill means there is less awareness of what E-Rate is, how it benefits schools, and the critical role E-Rate plays in helping schools afford telecommunications.

E-Learning Caucus › The House JUST launched an e-learning caucus. While it was created around virtual learning, the scope will be broad and will include education technology, E Rate, and more. Urge your Representative to join!

  Budget Control Act › Stems from Debt Ceiling Debate from Summer 2012 › › Raised debt ceiling Created Super Committee › › › › By default, creates sequestration Required votes on balanced budget amendment Established spending caps for next ten years Established Super Committee Sequestration › Sequestration triggered 1/1/12, Cuts go in to effect 1/1/13 › Estimated to be between a 7.8 and 9.1% cut › › Estimated Education Impact at 7.8% level:  Title I: $1.1 billion  IDEA: 978 million   Perkins: $136 million Head Start: $590 million AASA survey and call to action!

Budgetary Impact Reducing Professional Development Reducing Academic Programs (enrichment, after school, intervention, etc) Personnel Layoffs (non-instructional staff) Increased Class Size Personnel Layoffs (instructional staff) Deferring Technology Purchases Deferring Textbook Purchases Deferring Maintenance Eliminating Summer School Programs Reducing Course Offerings Reducing Extra-Curricular Activities Shift Funding of Extracurricular Activities to Families/Community/Boosters Cutting Bus Transportation Routes/Availability Personnel Furloughs Closing/Consolidating Schools Response

69.4% 58.1% 56.6% 54.9% 54.8% 52.8% 38.0% 36.6% 34.6% 25.6% 25.6% 20.2% 13.6%

8.6%

4.4%

    The Obama Administration/Sec. Arne Duncan: › 45.4 non-existent. › 34.9 poor/very poor.

Congress (in its entirety): › 55.9 percent non-existent, › 35.9 percent poor/very poor. Respondent’s Congressional Delegation: › 48.5 percent non-existent, › 32 percent poor/very poor.

Senate and House Education Committees and Appropriations Subcommittees: › 53.1 percent non-existent › 35.3 percent poor/very poor.

 Your Governor: › 50 percent non-existent, › 27.7 percent poor/very poor.  Your Chief State School Officer: › 33.3 percent non-existent, › 23.2 percent poor/very poor.  Your State Legislature: › 50.3 percent non-existent, › 31.8 percent poor/very poor.  Your State Board of Education: › 44.8 percent non-existent, › 26.8 percent poor/very poor.



American Association of School Administrators:

›

54.1 percent helpful/very helpful.



State Administrator Association (AASA affiliate):

›

55.1 percent helpful/very helpful.

     FY13 appropriations process moves along, but the House and Senate approaches are on completely different tracks Senate budget level is set at BCA levels; House budget level is significantly lower.

Senate LHHS approps bill includes $100 m increase for Title I and IDEA, level funds almost all others.

House LHHS bill is being marked up today!

Likely Scenario? Continuing Resolution thru the election, if not into next year. Final appropriations will be at BCA level. If there are increases, likely in Title I and IDEA

 

AASA asked for:

›

State control of accountability, assessment and consequences

› ›

Greater focus on content Greater flexibility in local program control Both Houses and Senate Committees included those policies in their bills

   AASA has pointed out the terrible impact of the great recession on public schools Last year the $10 billion in Ed Jobs funding can be tracked directly to data gathered by AASA AASA continually reminds Congress that federal funding though relatively small is very important to many school districts as the great recession continues into its fourth year

  AASA asked that the unique conditions of small rural school districts be considered when any education legislation is considered Small rural school districts have been funded and considered in every instance.

   AASA successfully led efforts to oppose the use of E-Rate dollars to fund a Digital Literacy Pilot.

AASA member comments helped end FCC-support for administering the Pilot through E-Rate capacity.

AASA advocated for the inclusion of education technology in the ESEA bills, supporting ATTAIN in the Senate bill and leading changes to the House bill.

  AASA asked that states be given time to develop bullying policy which › › Avoids the conflict in federal definition of bullying Focuses on improved local policy and practice rather than compliance with federal rules So far state policy has been allowed to develop without new federal requirements

   AASA has succeeded in convincing every Senate office to NOT SUPPORT S.2020

AASA’s reports on S/R were featured in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today and many other publications So far AASA has prevailed and state policy is developing without impossibly high new federal standards or new compliance monitoring

  In 92% of school districts, less than 10% of the time school personnel are not trained in how to use seclusion and restraint 78% of school personnel are trained in seclusion and restraint or nonviolent crisis interventions at least annually

       Child Nutrition Charters Vouchers Bullying IDEA IDEA Funding Career/Tech

 AASA Website: www.aasa.org

 AASA Blog: www.aasa.org/aasablog.aspx

 AASA Twitter: @Noellerson @SPudelski  Annual Legislative Advocacy Conference  Weekly Update: Legislative Corps  Monthly Update: Advocacy Alert 

Policy Insider

  Bruce Hunter ( [email protected]

) Noelle Ellerson ( [email protected]

)  Sasha Pudelski ( [email protected]

)